Posted
by
timothyon Sunday May 01, 2011 @08:24AM
from the may-I-interest-you-in-some-goat-organs? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a very funny piece over at Science Careers (published by the journal Science), scientist-comedian Adam Ruben suggests that a lot of good can come from a well-intentioned hoax. 'Hoaxes have infiltrated science for centuries,' Ruben writes, 'from fake fossils (Piltdown Man, archaeoraptor, Calaveras skull) to fake medical conditions (cello scrotum, the disappearing blonde gene) to fake animals (Ompax spatuloides, Pacific Northwest tree octopus, Labradoodle).' In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"

While it's true that we need one of these every so often to remind us of the need for scientific rigor, it also does great damage to science for many. e.g. Climategate gave ammo for global warming deniers, piltdown man gave more credence to creationists, etc.

Well, "Climategate" gave ammo for global warming deniers within their own echo chamber. The whole shit was made up from out-of-context quotes making up about 1 ppm of the stolen mails they scanned for it. Nothing a rational man would consider harmful. That's playing in a completely different league than the piltdown man, which was made up from beginning to end.

Not really. In fact, calling the opposition "bone heads" and loons and such only makes the proponents seem more fraudulent. Being dismissive of skeptics is a customary tool of con-man. If they want to be taken seriously, they should keep the gravitas in the phase of opposing view. Otherwise, they only lose credibility.

If there is a single sceptic amongst the deniers, and not another bonehead repeating talking points that have been debunked for years, well, yes, then I will take him serious. There is serious debate about the mechanisms and models of climate change amongst the scientists involved, you know. Ever had a glimpse into the literature? Just a tiny review article or two?

I am not talking to the general audience here, I am talking to one person who claims to have the truth, the absolute truth, nothing but the truth without bringing forth any argument as to where this truth comes from. Just baseless assertions. That is a difference...

And your scientific reason for that statement is... anal extraction? The big bad global climate conspiracy, made up of tens of thousands of scientists is out for you too? Better stay in your basement then. They are SCARY.

There are relatively few jobs in the field of climate science that allow questioning global warming. Practically all of the funding for it now derives from global warming alarmism. The people paying for it always want to know, "What are you doing about global warming?" and the answer "Taking a serious skeptical look at whether it actually exists." consistently results in pulled funding.

The field ballooned tremendously with external support and funding, almost all feeding the side that says "the sky is fal

The reality of the situation is that, with vanishingly few exceptions, a biologist who is determined to do any work which does not presuppose the existence of evolution will quickly find himself an unemployed outcast. Students unwilling to presuppose the existence of evolution will have a very hard time graduating with an advanced degree relevant to the field.

That's not the point, whether they question global warming or not. the point is "There are thousands of scientists who question the methodologies and conclusions of the CRU". That junk science by them is being the basis for a planned multi-trillion dollar parasitic system on the most developed countries.

"There are thousands of scientists who question the methodologies and conclusions of the CRU".

Every scientific paper I read has a section on the limitations of the methodologies and conclusions of the study. That's standard thoughtful academic writing. Scientists question *everything*. That doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong. It just means they've carefully considered alternative explanations.

For global warming, the overwhelming consensus makes it unlikely their conclusions are wrong.

It's possible they could be wrong. Anything is possible. But when we're faced with an imminent danger, we have to stop arguing over hypotheticals created by coal and gas industry think tanks and come to a plan of action.

Not that the majority is always right. Obviously, they've all been [threatened by the Illuminati|brainwashed with orbital lasers|bought off by the all-powerful lentil growers' lobby|other please specify _ _ _ _ _ _]

There is no science within the CRU to carry, that is an institution which generate speculations to prop up a multi-trillion dollar wealth heist.
The real collected data on global warming is a separate issue.

I am speaking of a planned heist not implemented, "cap and trade" and carbon tax and such.
The mega-corporations with our governments in their pocket are heisting us, and it includes almost all energy production, but they also have plans for increased profits from "cap and trade" and carbon taxes.

Wow. There is so much wrong in all of your statements, I don't know where to begin:
"Observed Reality" and "CRU Propaganda"
From the NOAA website [noaa.gov] where that graph came from:

Both use the same land-based thermometer measurement records from the GHCN, but the records contain some differences. These differences are due to different approaches to spatial averaging, the use and treatment of sea surface temperature data (from ship observations), and the handling of the influence of changes in land-cover (i.e., increases in urbanization). However, both show the same basic trends over the last 100 years. The units shown are departures from the 1960 - 1990 period.

So you either did not read clearly what NOAA said and/or made up your own conclusions based on nothing but your perceptions.

No delusion here, look at the last five years of these two graphcs . ..

Selectively focusing on the last 5 years and ignoring the larger trend of 145 shows that you don't understand basic tenets of science on interpolation. By your logic, the rent money and bills that I paid yesterday

The evidence is *much* stronger that burned fuel particles in the atmosphere increase the rate of asthma and bronchitis, causing as I recall 3,000 deaths a year from coal, 3,000 deaths a year from gasoline, and several times as much disability. (Just ask a nuclear power engineer.)

Chances are, he pretty much has a good idea what he is talking about. Truth is not important for the denialist spinmeisters. Can't use the truth to argue when you got no data supporting your position, after all. I have given guys like this the benefit of the doubt for years. I am done with that now.

So, in short, they waged a spin-war on the opposition. Regardless of title, they're politicians, and they happen to be on the side of "Global warming is a real problem."

It's a big, important question, with dramatic implications in the long, medium and short term. Deniers have a lot more to gain in the short term than believers, and based on that alone, I find the believers more believable.

Any question that involves Trillions of dollars will generate a political circus around it, with clowns on all sides.

Deniers have a lot more to gain in the short term than believers, and based on that alone, I find the believers more believable.

"Believers":For business, we are talking about trillions of dollars in government investment and laws that will favor your bottom line if you play ball. GE, for example made billions in profits and paid zero in taxes. Carbon credit trading companies stand to be the next Enron, except they will be trading government mandated nothings in exchange for real cash.

Government stand to gain unlimited power. They will gain the power to tell citizens what to eat, here to go, what to drive, where to work, what they will do, where to live and what temperature to keep that house at. They will literally be able to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the lives of citizens. This may also go beyond borders as well. A "world eco government" could be set up to set international rules. Of course, companies that play ball will receive government help, so the system is pre set up for corruption.

Scientists can gain because there is so much money and power to be gained, scientists and universities seeking grants will have better luck proposing a study that will "prove that stricter government control is required to prevent global catastrophe" will more likely get a grant than one that will "prove that global warming is not a problem and regulation is not needed".

"Deniers":Scientist deniers are going nowhere. They do not get grants and get shunned by their peers.Politicians are being compared to flat earthers and ridiculed by the main stream media. NBC and MSNBC were owned by GE, btw, who made billions in profits, yet paid no taxes.Businesses gain nothing by being a global warming denier. They lose any "green cred" which would run off an environmentally conscious customers. Oil companies are about to have their taxes raised (or tax brakes taken away, same thing) while gas prices are at a all time high.

So, it appears that "believers" have unlimited power and money to gain. The absolute best anyone can hope for by being a "denier" is the status quo, so absolutely nothing to gain, but everything to lose.

Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.

Wait a minute. Wasn't that whole climate-gate email scandal because scientists were trying to keep scientists who might disagree with them from getting their word out? Won't you simply accuse any scientist that shows that GW is not a problem or is not happening of spreading FUD and/or working for big oil or (insert evil company here)? So they prevent those that may disprove their work from getting published, attack and credibility and ridicule any who might get the word out otherwise and then use the fact that no published or credible work disagrees with them as proof that their work is correct.

Of course, anyone who disagrees is immediately discredited simply by the very fact that they disagree. Here is a quote that proves it:

However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general.

See, those that disagree are labeled "deniers", as in they are denying the facts. And of course, simply by the fact that they question GW, they are "attacking science in general". In other words, they have no credibility as scientists because a real scientist wouldn't dare go against the "consensus".

Also, "consensus" means nothing in science. Everything that science has proved wrong was once supported by a consensus. Science is not a democracy.

Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.

You do know that companies don't pay taxes, right? Companies, including oil companies, pass any increase in cost directly to their customers.

Your post is a fine example of what I like to call environmental hypocrisy. You will fight tooth and nail to not do so much as take your shoes off to get on airplane. You will fight to the death for the right to not carry an ID card. However, because you believe that there will be an energy shortage one day, you want government to create an artificial shortage today. It doesn't matter that we have enough energy to last us for hundreds of years, you wish to create an artificial shortage by limiting the amount of energy we may produce domestically and you actually believe that it will somehow make us import less. People like you are so happy to punish those who use more than you that you lose your ability to think logically. You really don't care that you have to pay more for food and transportation as long as you know that the rich guy in the SUV has to pay more also. You are happy to make someone else suffer for their lifestyle, simply because you don't like it. And when you see that mother of two have to tell her kids that they can't afford to go to Grandma's house because gas is too expensive, you comfort yourself by saying, “we all have to make sacrifices in order to create the world that I want to live in. Besides, they can see Grandma on Facetime.”

The best part? You accuse others of using fear to force the people to change the way they do things and then turn around use fear to force others to change the way they live their lives. It means nothing to you that real people have really died due to terrorism, and that terrorists really do want to kill more people, you see climate change as a bigger threat even though exactly zero people have died due to global warming, and that climate change has happened since the beginning of time. You want government to force me to live my life the way YOU think I should live it, even though, and I use your words, “There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.”

You won't remove your shoes to stop terrorists from killing the innocent, but you will gladly pay more for your life just to keep me from taking my little girl away from the city lights to see the rings of Saturn through her new telescope.

You mean they blackballed one journal that happened to publish a denialist article without it going through review? That journal? The one, where the editors had to resign later, because that's where the TRUE scientific scandal did happen? I won't even argue with the rest of your talking points. They have been thoroughly debunked ages ago. Repeating them is lying. Simple as that.

I think it is worth while to point out that, of the 5 independent investigations that were launched as a result of the so-called "Climategate", all 5 have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation [discovermagazine.com]. None of the 5 were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice. I'd call that, coupled with the endorsement of the G-7 national academies of science, a pretty unequivocal vindication of the science of Global Climate Change.

The sad part here is that had the inquiries been honest, they could have possibly recovered some of their lost credibility. Instead, we now have yet again baseless appeals to authority in order to justify a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

If you want to talk about the "science" of Global Climate Change, posit your fal

Actually, I didn't just appeal against authority, I provided a citation for exactly what the problems were with the Climategate whitewashes.

Let's take one example, Oxborough. An investigation so thorough that it ended up being 5 pages long. Here's some relevant detail on the 11 so-called representative papers they examined (and you'll of course do me the favor of actually responding to the specific allegations and problems here, rather than appealing again to authority of course):

While it's true that we need one of these every so often to remind us of the need for scientific rigor

Define "us". The scientifically literate are already skeptical. Joe sixpack is going to oscillate between believing everything he hears and believing nothing. While that might sound good to those who believe in shit like crowdsourcing & the gambler's fallacy, in reality it's about as good as a stopped clock.

Climategate has actually proven that the degree of certainty of their conclusions is overstated. It hasn't disproven the theory, of course. But that's not really the point. In fact, you can't credibly claim damage to debate if it's shown that the side which goes by the mantra "trust us" is possibly deluding itself. Let's be honest, if the same kinds of emails came out from quant department of an investment bank, everyone would be saying that this bank is a fraud. I think we can insist on the same degr

Your statement about scientist in this case is completely untrue. They most certainly do have a vested interest in the conclusions since their funding is tied to the amount of public acceptance of their conclusions. And once again, since their conclusions directly effect public policy, even more specifically global energy policy, the amount scrutiny they have to receive is actually larger than the amount of scrutiny which banks have to receive. A bad decision by a quant in an investment bank could result

Since this research is conducted with public funds, I would argue they have to publish collected data with all of their conclusions.

At the moment such requirement does not exist. This is actually a problem not only in this particular discipline. It's a problem in all of scientific publications. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of most academic research in applied science. I know (because I've seen it happen personally) that people on occasion collect data at great expense in academic setting a

You modularize the units which need re-testing. If you separate it into row data, analytics and conclusions, you can attempt verifying any one of those. It has multiple advantages. First, it reduces the cost of verifiability. At the moment someone who can understand the analytics but doesn't have the funds or expertise to reproduce the data can't make a fully informed judgement of validity. Just as someone who is an expert in experimentation isn't able to reproduce the experiments because their cost wo

That it is possible to live in a world where the mere concepts of such things are so alien that you find yourself drawn to say "how meta is that?" is simultaneously tragic and tantalizingly promising. I can only hope that our (rhetorical) children live in a world of such comparative innocence.

Labradoodles are both real, *and* a blasphemous abomination before the Lord.

Seriously. Labs and Poodles should never be in the same room together, let alone mated. They're the most disgustingly horrific dog to have ever been successfully bred this side of Lovecraft's fecund imagination.

Science is about focused skepticism, not general skepticism. It is very difficult to successfully peer review a paper that is deliberately attempting to decieve. Those usually need to wait until the experiments are repeated and fail to produce the expected results. Politics is a bitter, poisonous soup of lies and disingenuous spins where accurate models do not trump clever rhetoric and trolls will attempt to strike you down not in the search for truth, but just to see if they can do it. Science is hard enough to do without people deliberately attempting to set you up for failure.

OP picked a Fox News story contemporaneous with the beginning part of the Iraq war to point out something that it's now clear is false. Fox News doesn't have weapons inspectors, they, and all the other news sources, rely on what other people said to bring out the news. ABC and NBC had similar stories to this at the time, but OP picked Fox News to prove some kind of point, probably that Fox News was biased, and excusing President Bush for being wrong about something.
Similarly, MSNBC didn't investigate the

You've had your chance to argue once again that global warming is bad science. I'm not convinced. You're using a standard debater's trick, which is to go through an enormous document and find details to disagree with. You're entitled to try, but it doesn't hold up. You're reduced to an ad hominem attack on Phil Jones rather than addressing the merits.

I think it's good science. More important, most of the top scientists in the world think it's good science.

Fortunately the disappearance of the blonde gene in females cannot happen due to a interesting epigenetic phenomenon.

As is well known, blondeness is fairly prevalent at birth in both males and females but fades as the individual matures, with most blondes turning brunette before the end of adolescence. But a remarkable phenomenon, evidently involving the modification of the blonde gene possibly through environmental effects, often occurs soon after whereupon the prevalence of blondeness starts to increase again. Most remarkable, individuals whose innate blondeness was never expressed as a child (they were always brunette), begin to express the blonde gene in early adulthood. For reasons that so far remain unexplained this phenomenon, though not avoiding males entirely, is almost entirely seen in females.

It appears then that this epigenetic phenomenon will act to restore blondeness to the female population offsetting any long-term trends to the gene's underlying extinction.

I thought about citing research data that exposure to the far more toxic cousin of dihydrogen monoxide produced by industrial economies - dihydrogen dioxide - might be the environmental factor causing this remarkable epigenetic phenomenon, but that seemed to be "gilding the lily" as they say.

If you understand evolution to mean that you, personally, have been an amoeba at some time, you are so far out that I don't know what to tell you here. Please, read up on the subject before making comments. Besides, every scientific theory is unproven. the thing about evolution is that it is unfalsified despite of decades of people trying hard.

There is more evidence in Creationism - as well as it making more sense.

But if we take Bronze Age myths as evidence, then there's much more evidence for theories other than Judeo-Christian creationism. There are hundreds, thousands of different creationist myths out there.

If you think an old book is evidence enough you have to consider all other old books as equally valid, don't you?

I am pretty much tired of this discussion. The evidence supporting evolution is laid down in decades worth of scientific journals filled with articles on every detail. First we constructed the interrelationship of species by anatomical means. Later we learned to read genetic codes and protein sequences. And guess what - the relationships derived from those are nearly identical to the earlier though. What stronger evidence do you need? Well, you are entitled to your believes of course, but reality exists sep

Man, that is bad. At the fist two comments I thought you was just joking, but that one has a quite serious tone. Really, we did learn a thing or two at the last couple of millenniums, take a loot at it.

Ok, so, please, show us your evidence that proves where we really came from? And no, a book written over the course of a few centuries and edited by a large group of men centuries after the events it describes took place is not valid as evidence.

Part of what you said is sort of correct. None of your ancestors was an amoeba. Whether one of your ancestors was an ape or just a common ancestor between humans and apes is uninteresting semantics. You had ancestors that would look like something any of us would see and say "that's an ape!" . But let's focus on the amoeba claim. Amoebas are not simple primitive organisms. Indeed, they share some similarities with complex life forms such as the presence of a cell nucleus. Amoebas are highly adopted for the

Grumpy people whose default setting is "no new information" do indeed label themselves skeptics. The funny thing is a lot of them seem to be incredibly gullible once they let that guard down. Makes me wonder if the "skeptic" pose is a form of self-protection.